Practiced Spellcaster feat

Stalker0 · Jul 21, 2004

I think most people don't understand just how underpowered a multiclassed caster can be.

By losing caster levels, I have effectively neutered myself against things that have SR. But because I have lower spell levels, my saves are also lower, meaning I can't hit things with decent saves either. And with globes of invulnerability and the like, many of my spells just don't work. So a multiclass spellcaster can't use offensive spells.

Okay, I'll use defensive ones. But unfortunately, at higher levels many of those become obsolete. Invisibility is easily negated at high levels, buffs spells (because of your low caster level) are easily stripped away by dispels, spells that give +1 or +2 benefits just don't cut it anymore in a world where +4 and +5 are now the norm. In short, low level spells don't cut it in the high level world.

Now going back to the arcane trickster example, where the person kept saying their player had no problems with the weaknesses of his spells. For a person whose already willing to take the penalties of multiclassing and such, then the argument is pointless. If your already willing to multiclass as a spellcaster go ahead. The problem is that the majority of people once they have a little experience under their belt, recognize that multiclasses casters are much weaker than most archetypes and so will never play them. This feat at least gives them some incentive.

The feat is not overpowered, it just that the archetype is so weak in general.

ruleslawyer · Jul 21, 2004

Thanee said:
But what is that right route you are talking about, anyways?

Archmage, usually! But seriously, an MT should not be casting spells that require saves, due to the fact that those spells require ability score specialization (to get the save DCs up) and the fact that save-or -consequences and SR penetration tend to be hand-in-hand issue.

The only change is, that his spells are cast at a level appropriate for his character level. Nothing more, nothing less.

But my point is that there are only two disadvantages to the MT: Lack of access to higher-level spells and lack of spell penetration capability. PS removes one of those two advantages.

Of course, their versatility/flexibility is much more of a bonus at higher levels, but the lack of high level spells is a huge disadvantage. While low to medium level spells still are good and can achieve something, the highest level spells are where the real power lies. And this power is something the Mystic Theurge completely lacks.

I tend to agree, though others don't always, as I pointed out.

I fail to see the connection here. What does that have to do with caster level!?

Because, well, save-or-consequences spells are highly caster-level dependent at high levels, due to SR penetration issues.

However, I'm just trying to make a devil's advocate argument for my own purposes, and failing utterly. Given that PS adds to only one caster class, I really don't think it's a big deal, and I'd say that it's balanced, possibly even in combination with the MT.

Scion · Jul 21, 2004

ruleslawyer said:
But my point is that there are only two disadvantages to the MT: Lack of access to higher-level spells and lack of spell penetration capability. PS removes one of those two advantages.

Of course, if those are the only two then my example above showing that spell penetration is still a better bet for the theurge for the purpose of SR would make practiced spellcaster to weak of a feat! lol

Mr. Kaze · Jul 21, 2004

Re: Taken as a 1st level feat for concept characters rather than whenever the player feels like it...

Thanee said:
@Mr. Kaze: A human could still pick it twice then, or not?

No -- it's treated as an unnamed bonus that doesn't stack with itself. Since they can't have 2 spellcasting classes at 1st level, they can't deem that one instance of the feat applies to one and the other to the other at that point.

Cheers,
::Kaze (wonders if he's right about the whole lich thing.

)

ruleslawyer · Jul 21, 2004

Scion said:
Of course, if those are the only two then my example above showing that spell penetration is still a better bet for the theurge for the purpose of SR would make practiced spellcaster to weak of a feat! lol

Yuppers; although they DO stack, it's still on the weak side because of the fewer feats that an MT gets, compared to a straight caster.

Pax · Jul 21, 2004

Ourph said:
Yet he can increase his ability in melee to the equivalent of a 35th level Fighter with a simple 1st level spell (that he can cast over and over again) called True Strike; something neither a single classed Sorcerer (who lacks the combat prowess) or a single classed Fighter (who can't cast the spell) is able to do.

That's not quite true - True Strike provides an insight bonus, not an increase to Base Attack. Besides which, a single-classed Fighter(20) can drink a Potion of True Strike ... or cast a True Strike from a Ring of Spell Storing. Equivalent of 40th level in terms of to-hit.

Or the Sorceror(20) can cast the spell, and have a +30 total to hit, the equivalent of a 30th level fighter in terms of being able to connect with a blow.

Ourph said:
The trade-off for that power is that the character will NEVER be good at using spells offensively.

Why?

Why can't I give up, say, 8th and 9th level spells in order to be significantly better than my pure-spellcasting peers at hitting with rays, energy missiles, and the like? And why can't I do that without also eviscerating my ability to get through SR with the lower-level spells that are left to me ... ?!?

Ourph said:
Offensive use of spells is the single most powerful ability in D&D.

My Arena experiences say otherwise. It's just as possible to twinkout a ranged- or melee-combat character as it is to twink out a spellcaster. Easier, even, given the greater ability to multiclass and cherry-pick for class abilities without evenlosing a single point of BAB!

Ourph said:
The fact that you give that up when multiclassing is (at least in my opinion) inherently necessary to making multiclass spellcasters balanced.

As has been pointedout multiple times, by multiple people, spellcasters give up more for multiclassing than any other class: a fighter, barbarian, or ranger who multiclasses gives up one thing and one thing only: specific class abilities. Meanwhile, a spellcaster, gives up (A) higher level spells, (B) spell penetration, (C) spell range, (D) spell duration, (E) spell area, (F) spell damage, (G) resistance to dispel magic, (H) ability to dispel hostile spells, (I) spells-per-day of the levels still available to him, and (J) specific class abilities (i.e. familiar improvement, turning of undead, wildshape, etc, etc).

So spellcasters are affected in ten ways, compared to the one way that others are affected when multiclassing. Practised Spellcaster ameliorates seven of those ways.

That still leaves a three-to-one disadvantage squarelyin hte lapof hte multiclass spellcaster in terms of what s/he givesup in return for the other class' abilities.

Ourph said:
There seems to be a general consensus in this thread that multiclass spellcasters are underpowered when using the core rules only. I vehemently disagree with that idea.

Sow me any mixture of classes, other than the lame-duck "mostly X with a level or three of spellcaster", which isn't readily drop-kicked by a non-multiclassed spellcaster of ANY stripe.

Thanee · Jul 21, 2004

Pax said:
My Arena experiences say otherwise. It's just as possible to twinkout a ranged- or melee-combat character as it is to twink out a spellcaster. Easier, even, given the greater ability to multiclass and cherry-pick for class abilities without evenlosing a single point of BAB!

Well, these arena fights operate under quite a number of house rules, tho, which mostly deal with limiting spellcasters (AFAIK), since otherwise they would totally dominate the arena fights, obviously.

Other than that, I agree, tho, that it's very well possible to make really powerful non-spellcasters at high levels now in 3.5.

Bye
Thanee

Pax · Jul 21, 2004

Not entirely, Thanee. While spellcasters in general have needed limits, it's mostly to specific and especial spells, rather than to the class itself - and more to reflect the "one fight per day" nature of an Arena, which is not the situation the spells were originally balanced for.

I've seen ECL25 fighter-types able to consistently deal upwards of 700hp of damage in a single full attack - sadly, my wee little character was on the receiving end of said damage, which only served to make the event all the more memorable. At that point, it doesn't matter if you used a spell, or a big honing sword, to deal that damage ... dead is dead, and precious little will survive THAT level of damage. ^_^

ARandomGod · Jul 21, 2004

Pax said:
Show me any mixture of classes, other than the lame-duck "mostly X with a level or three of spellcaster", which isn't readily drop-kicked by a non-multiclassed spellcaster of ANY stripe.

Multiclassed:
Ranger 11
Paladin 2
Monk 4
Fighter 2
Barbarian 2 (Yes, barb and monk, together at last! With enough ranger levels in between it's easy to come up with a reason. And paladin... well, I didn't say THAT was easy. You gotta give up something there. OK, Fine, drop the paladin or the barbarian, and pick whichever suits your style better)

That's ranger spellcasting right there. ^_^. Change it to paladin four for two types of spell casting.

Although, really, would this character wast time on the practiced spellcaster feat?

Thanee · Jul 21, 2004

Everyone with Hide Life...

Ok, that's really a broken spell.

I've heard plenty such limits so far, tho. Like Freedom of Movement not working (because then Grappling suddenly isn't working anymore), or Combatants not allowed to leave the arena, thus limiting the characters with better movement (aka Teleport

), Mordenkainen's Disjunction nerfed, and so on.

Hey, who cares if someone can deal 700 points of damage in a full attack, if they never get to do one?

Anyways, just wanted to point out, that there are quite a few house rules, which make these experiences a bit different, of course.

Bye
Thanee